How do you not see a Res Ipsa Loquitur argument for the plaintiffs here?
Hello BigIron
The argument is certainly available to the plaintiffs.
I see it mitigated by the fact this is about pilot error. It does not follow that because bad stuff happened, the pilot erred in his professional responsibilities.
As I understand it for aviation, like with legal or medical malpractice, there is the complicated matter of attempting to prove that the person deemed responsible did something unusually irresponsible that nobody else in his position would have done.
In this instance we do not yet know what his position was, that's not really been determined. The Navy investigators intimated there might have been a bird or some or reason to fly low in which case his actions might have been consistent with the actions of any pilot in his position.
Arguing Res Ipsa right now would be in my mind a little like suing a doctor for malpractice because the doctor administered a drug that the patient was allergic to and the doctor took no steps to find out the patients allergies. Come to find, down the road, that the patient spoke only Spanish and was a gunshot wound victim in the emergency room. That provides an alternate reason than "it speaks for itself" which also happens to exculpate the doctor of any professional mistake.
There is a Res Ipsa argument here but I don't see it as particularly solid ground in light of the Navy investigation which appears (at present) inconclusive. Res Ipsa Loquitur is as much a legal argument as it is a logical fallacy, until they do more discovery I don't think they will have a viable case.
A really strong Res Ipsa argument here would be if they uncovered evidence the pilot was very inexperienced or recently had a medical problem that severely impeded his ability to fly. In that circumstance we could still not definitively say what happened in the cockpit, but the Res Ipsa argument would provide the crucial missing key: a negligent
reason the pilot flew low.
